Luckily you still have the FREEDOM to create spammy uneconomcial transactions (once which cost more in fees that they are worth spending).  You just have to find someone willing to mine it for you.

<GASP>  Freedom means opportunity not forcing others to bend to your will. 

Spammers have the freedom to create spammy worthless transactions.
Nodes have the freedom to either relay them or not.
Miners have the freedom to decide what transactions go into the current block.

I saw the few replies regarding this but id like to point something out, The following examples all use bullshit numbers for simplicity and ease of understanding.

Transaction fees are based on the amount of data in the transaction, the more transactions you link to the larger that data set is.
(the data includes where each transaction came from, so lots of tiny amounts sent to you really add up when you spend them.)

(these are not real fees, these are total crap numbers, its just so you get the idea)
Essentially whats happening is that someone is paying you 1 penny, but it will cost you 1$ to send it., in essense, you just threw away 99 pennies to spend that 1 penny.

The difference in value of what your receiving makes all the difference here. Any amount you receive that is the same or below the minimum fee, is going to likely cost you more then you received to send it(example above). There is some wiggle room with how its all calculated but i dont think that is the most important factor for you. For example, lets say you receive 1 penny, it costs 1 penny to send it. as a result you have a net gain of 0$ if you receive 2 pennies and it costs 1 penny to send it then you have a net gain of 1 penny, or 50% of what you received, Not a vary good percentage. Even at 10 pennies  with a cost of 1 penny thats still only nets you 9 out of 10 pennies or 90% of your money. Thats like a 10% fee!

Whats my point? To put it plainly. the closer the amounts that you receive are to the fee you must pay, the less of your money you get to keep. The larger the amounts you receive, the more you get to keep.

Hopefully what im trying to say is easy to understand.


Makes me really wish bitcoinQT had some ability to select which transactions to use and the ability to view the related fees for them on the fly.

Try Linux.

But... Linux is imo plain old way better than those OS's are. Why should bitcoin bow to inferior operating systems? Popular use is cool, but I'd be happier about 10% of all linux users using btc than 11% of windows users using it. (Note that i have no idea what these numbers actually imply.)

I honestly sense a trace of hipocrisy. How might you go about joining the core dev team to fix these problems?
I'd join, but my coding abilities take a sharp nosedive at myspace-style HTML.
Do you have any active pull requests or an altcoin in the works?
Did you know you're ignore flagged?
*gasp* Am I ignore flagged?!

No.. Bad Idea. We should show support for the devs who work their ass off getting out updates.

And blocking microtransactions is a bad thing? Not only did it slow up the speed of transactions it completly spams blockchain.

It spams the uxto which is normally kept in memory.

The core dev team is actually pretty good compared with most open source projects, but is still vulnerable to a 51% consensus attack...

It doesnt matter tho, because losses to bitcoin will be gains to alt currencies. 

It's competition fair and square.

I am sorry to break it to you but it has never been fair. They have too much power, and sadly no one wants to fork it, so some of us have to deal with it.


And the more you say it doesn't make it right. No one has explained why it is spam? It isn't spam, when I started with bitcoin, micro-transactions were welcomed. And at that point they were worth less than they are worth now. So what changed, the core dev team can't fix the blockchain and don't want to deal with it.

I was actually around before SD, was. But that isn't an excuse. SD created a business model, that was successful, Erik didn't do anything he wasn't suppose and even paid the fees, making that excuse a very bad one. That is the free market if it was harmful to the end user, why not stop using SD all together. But instead of doing that, the core devs took it upon them to say, that is not how we want bitcoin to be use, and they changed it. Shame on them, that is horrible and they talk about how bad money is. Look at bitspend chase shut them down, basically the core dev team did the same thing to SD. Horrible, inexcusable abuse of their power, and not an excuse as to why micro-transactions should be stopped.

Your semi right in the sense it does use allot of your CPU to check that new blocks it receives are valid, Why that is.. im not entirely sure. could a GPU in this case speed this up and take some of the load off of the CPU? I dont know.

If your having issues installing the client then i dont think its the clients fault.

If on the other hand you mean you cant install it because of the errors you get while its checking the blockchain, or that it stops checking it. I think that means your cpu is giving invalid information back to the program when it verifies the block. If the cpu messes up and the data ends up damaged and shows its incorrect, the client seems to stop dead in its tracks since there is no point trying to further verify a 'invalid' block. To that end.. maybe it should check a failed block twice You should look into it and maybe bug the devs if this is the case.(you can simply restart the client to get it to try that block again)

Anyone else know if this is accurate?

You cant send a tx where the output is less than the new limit.

The new limit are based on developer estimates of cost.

But they have unintended consequences, for example, if you had made a business in colored coins, this change may hit you hard.